BOEING 797
It can comfortably fly 10,000 Miles
at Mach 0.88 or 654 mph
with 1000 passengers on board!
It can comfortably fly 10,000 Miles
at Mach 0.88 or 654 mph
with 1000 passengers on board!
Rumor has it...
"The BOEING 797....
Boeing is preparing this 1000 passenger Jet Liner that could reshape the Air Travel Industry. Its radical "Blended Wing & Fuselage" design has been developed by Boeing in cooperation with NASA Langley Research Centre. The mammoth aircraft will have a wing span of 265 feet compared to 211 feet of its 747, and its been designed to fit within the newly created Air Terminals for the 555 seat Airbus A380, which is 262 feet wide.
The new 797 is Boeing's direct response to the Airbus A380, which has racked up orders for 159 already. Boeing decided to kill its 747X Stretched Super Jumbo in 2003 after little interest was shown for it by Airline Companies, but continued to develop its "Ultimate Airbus Crusher", the 797 at its Phantom Works Research Facility in Long Beach, California.
The Airbus A380 had been in the works since 1999 and has accumulated $13 Billion in development costs, which gives Boeing a huge advantage. More so because Airbus is thus committed to the older style tubular structure for their aircraft for decades to come.
There are several big advantages in the "Blended Wing & Fuselage"
design, the most important being the ‘Lift to Drag’ ratio which is expected to
increase by an amazing 50%, resulting in an overall weight reduction of the
aircraft by 25%, making it an estimated 33% more fuel efficient than the A380,
and thus making the Airbus's $13 Billion Dollar investment look pretty shaky.
"High Airframe Rigidity" is another key factor in the "Blended Wing & Fuselage" technology. It reduces turbulence and creates less stress on the airframe which adds to fuel efficiency, giving the 797 a tremendous 10,000 Mile range with 1,000 passengers on board cruising comfortably at Mach 0.88 or 654 MPH, which gives it another advantage over the tube-and-wing designed A380's 570 MPH.
The exact date for introduction of the 797 is as yet
unclear, but the battle lines are clearly drawn in the high-stakes war for
future civilian aircraft supremacy."
What do you think? Is it possible? Could this be the future? Would you fly on this plane if it came to being?
Enjoy the Journey!
XOX Karlene
Hi, Karlene!
ReplyDeleteThose pictures have been around. They're p'shopped views of the X-48 unmanned technology demonstrator...which is back in the news, having resumed flight tests. The wiki' article on the X-48 is here.
Boeing apparently did toy with the idea of a blended wing airliner and went so far as to construct a cabin mockup...which passengers hated. Nobody wanted to sit forty feet away from the nearest window. So they dropped it (except as a possible military tanker/cargo configuration).
Fun to think about, tho'.
Best,
Frank
Wow... that's interesting. I did not know there actually had been a test. First glance I thought there performance would be an issue and this had to be a joke.
DeleteAnd then the issue about the seats? The comment below was written about the seats prior to yours posting.
Thank you for the comment and the great article too!
April 2013 flight tests of the X48C were completed. This is an ongoing project.
Deleteit looks pretty ugly
DeleteThat it does!
DeleteMost blended wing designs are unlikely to be accepted into commercial aviation, because I can guarantee you they can't evacuate a full BWB aircraft in under 90 seconds.
Deletelooks gorgeous but also like a stingray
DeleteIt does for sure!
DeleteThere are a number of reasons why this aircraft cannot and does not exist today:
Delete1) Too much drag. The leading edge of the wings and blended fuselage design are aerodynamically unfriendly. Fuel consumption would be horrendous.
2) The previous points made about passenger comfort and distance to windows. This would also be of concern as far as to say as they are just as far away from the emergency exits. Not good and unrealistic.
3) The amount of thrust needed to get such an aerodynamically inefficient design in such a large and heavy package would be tremendous. I doubt anything without afterburners in this day and age would manage such a task.
4) We still have not managed to pressurise an aircraft cabin that is any shape other than cylindrical. So, this 'open-plan' cabin design is currently impossible in a pressurised environment. At least today.
5) Airports would have to be completely redesigned to take this sized and shaped aircraft. Airbridges would currently not have the reach or articulation to mate with the doors (blended fuselage/wing design). Especially as the blended delta wing design travels the full length of the fuselage. How are you going to exit this thing in any reasonable time frame? I question the assumption that the 265 foot wingspan mentioned above is correct. I would suggest this aircraft would need a larger wingspan to get off the ground and stay off it.
In conclusion - It looks pretty cool and the artist that designed it is extremely proficient in Photoshop.
Chris, this is interesting. And... I had not thought about the pressurization aspect. Fascinating. Yes... photo shop is amazing...fun to think of the futuristic side of aviation. Thank you so much for your comment!
Deleteugly????? It's a damn huge plane that goes 10,000 miles with 1,000 passengers, you're ugly
DeleteYes... ugly! Should be against the law to build an ugly plane. I'm thinking the 380 is pretty homely, too. :)
DeleteAbout the distance from the windows u could have economy and first class in the outer rims of the plane and then have suites like the airline Ethiad, but that would lower the passenger capasity..........just a thought though
Deletething is tho people are talking about how futuristic this looks and all that but look up the v22 osprey tell me that isnt more futuristic and another thing window seats all they would have to do is put up like some window sized 4k graphic tvs and some cameras and you would be set but the way that the seats are thats pretty compact i dont think that anybody wants to sit that close or they could add drop down vr headsets to watch first person movies. ps:not really a big thing yet but they will be. anyways the plane looks like the spirit bomber on hulk juice and the v22 osprey is probably the most futuristic aircraft out rn
DeleteI don't want to fly IN this thing. It's all middle seats with no outside view! How will I know if the pilots are doing their thing properly? Oh, I get it, no pilots.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't fly in this either. And the funny thing is, you are not alone on the seat issue.
DeleteYou know... it's kind of fun to imagine. Maybe a story will be made about this. Check out the article that Frank posted. Thanks for your comment.
Yes, I recognized the concept as something I've seen before. The B2 used the same idea, and is unstable. You can't build a stable flying wing, so certification would be a concern, and if the artificial flight stability system quits, you eject. I'd like to see THAT with 1,000 passengers....
Deletean outside view? know if the pilots are not crashing the aircraft? trust me you'll feel it when the plane is dropping 1,000 feet per second and if you are that much of an idiot then you'll know once you're just a bunch of meat splattered all over the ground!!!!!!
DeleteI do not want to be splattered meat!!!
DeleteIt's 2024 and the 🌎 world is ready! Boeing get off the pot or poop!
DeleteThe concept looks really impressive, same thing with the figures (costs, fuel consumption, speed, etc.). However I wonder how accepted would be this aircraft in the industry. I mean, airports would have to be redesigned. Let's imagine eight or ten "797s" parked while boarding/unboarding passengers, airports facilities would have to be different than they're now.
ReplyDeleteNow, if you ask me if I would fly on it, my answer is YES, I would (Jeez!, I love planes).
Greetings :)
Thanks Mario! Okay... they will for sure have a passenger. You know, all of us who say we never would...probably would.
DeleteYes... redesigning everything would be a huge impact. They actually had to do that, on a smaller scale, for the A380. Such an interesting and fun world we live.
Keep loving planes! And thank you for your comment!
That's happened before, not just for the A380. I'm old enough to remember when the same concerns were expressed over the B747-100. Airports just got bigger.
DeleteYes... so true. And then came the 380. How big will these airports eventually get? Hopefully they have room to grow. :)
DeleteI sure hope that when and if Boeing finally does build its 1,000 seater plane, it is more creative in the naming department.
ReplyDeleteMay be call it the Boeing 1000.
And hopefully Airbus will still be around too ... you know, just for the sake of competition ... to keep the folks honest.
Indeed, I look forward to a third major player in the civil aviation space - may be building 100 seater or 200 seater planes.
Yes, competition is good and essential. Keeps everyone honest and always doing their best. And honestly... your name is the best name. I like it.
DeleteThanks for your comment!
I think the big downside I see to this design is a severe lack of window seats! Maybe most people don't care but I hate getting stuck in the middle where I can't see outside even a bit...
ReplyDeleteYes. So true. Looks like they have a lot of aisles though. I'm wondering... how can you evacuate 1000 people in the required time? Could be a challenge.
Deleteuse the viedo tv in front of you with the right cameras you would see more then you do now
DeleteThe 797 will fit in the same space as the A-380, so no new redesigning.
ReplyDeleteOh... now there is a plus. So it will fit. Okay... there you have it. Maybe the runways weren't just expanded for the Airbus after all.
Delete---Giving Boeing an advantage---
DeleteIt is fiction now... I heard the same thing as the top comments are saying. But here is my idea: Airbus has a plan to make a completely new aircraft with no pilots and with a special transparent fuselage made out of special resin. So, let's make it bigger and transparent! :D
ReplyDeleteOh... and now we're back to the question... would we fly without pilots? We all say never, but who knows. You are at the beginning of the next generation... what an exciting place to be.
DeleteFlying without pilots would be unfair. Actually, pretty dangerous. Machines don't think, they do what they are programmed to do. Would they know what to do when the aircraft is stalling? Okay, a better question: would they know what to do what a well trained pilot knows what to do? That is the question. However, you are right, who knows! But unmanned airplanes will take many many years to be developed. Wow, what a subject! So complex, I can't find an answer! There's too many things to be considered! Fantastic question, Karlene!
DeleteInteresting to know that Boeing decided to kill the notion of an A380 style double deck to tail to compete with Airbus. The model above is awesome from the outside, however, I agree with the above comments: I would not want to be seated away from a window seat. I'd rather not fly to begin with if I can not see what is outside of the aircraft - especially if we declare an emergency. (Yes, I am a picky avgeek.) And yes, there better be pilots inside as the notion of planes flying themselves, well, let's just say, that idea doesn't fly with me to well... Cheers, -J
ReplyDeleteMost of us Avgeeks are picky. I'm thinking I'd be very claustrophobic to be inside this plane. I need windows too! And Pilots. So demanding aren't we?
DeleteI love the background city scene in the first photo. It looks like it's out of the Jetsons.
ReplyDeleteIt does look like the Jetsons. And before we know it...we'll all be living there.
DeletePassengers on the centreline would be disadvantaged by seating that is so far away from windows, natural light. But, the advances of in flight entertainment systems can nearly clean this up. However, those at the windows would literally have to be aerobatic types, sustain the huge movements, inertia of a simple roll - movements that would make loads of people quite sick.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I'm now thinking no sickness. No disadvantage. They should take all the windows out. They could fill the cabin with lizard lights. Great idea.
DeleteLizard lights, lol. I think because you're seated so far away from the centre of the aircraft, the sensation is of a much larger movement when the aircraft makes a very slight movement, windows, of course wouldn't matter to those few seated near them in such a case. Would a 45 degree roll produce a stomach churning vertical movement in excess of 20 metres? They shouldn't take the windows out so much as looking into flying the aircraft in such a way as to minimise discomfort of those passengers. I think air sickness would be a much bigger problem than lack of windows in such an aircraft.
DeleteI'm thinking... it's just too big. Why would 1000 people ever want to go to the same place anyway? But... on another note. We shouldn't be rolling 45 degrees either. lol.
DeleteNever happen. It's too radical and both airline manufacturers and the airlines themselves are too conservative for this kind of radical re-design.
ReplyDeleteExcellent point. Unless it made them money, then conservatism goes out the window. :)
Deletehttp://www.boeing.com.tr/haberler-ve-bas%C4%B1n-odas%C4%B1/bas%C4%B1n-bultenleri/2016/oca/turk-havayollari-ve-boeing-uzun-vadeli-isbirligi-anlasmasi-imzaladi.page?
DeleteThis is the bowing Turkey web site
At that link there is a photo at upper side
that looks like 797
I think fewer people care about windows than you may realise... The fact is, to the average passenger, once you're at cruising altitute, there isn't much to see anyway. Most folks are looking at the TV screens, not out the windows... That said, this cabin could feel like a cozy movie theatre, and if the screen was big enough, people would be fighting for those middle seats...
ReplyDeleteWhy be so resistant to change folks? That attitude gets us no where...
Ahhh... Change is a good thing. But put 1000 people on a plane for that length of time, add alcohol, fatigue, dehydration... windows or not, this is a recipe for disaster.
DeleteBut, if they found it feasible, and could make them money, I'm sure they would do it. Never say never.
How large an airplane can be is limied by the lift to weight ratio (which decreases with size). Even at 25% weight reduction, will the blended wing/fuselage airplane stay in the air with 1000 passengers?
ReplyDeleteIf so, this would be a mamoth accomplishment, and solving whatever problms with windows, fatigue, dehydration, and docking space are trivial by comparison. Surely such an airplane would offer a magnificent flying experience, and I for one would not hesitate to go...
Yes, it would be monumental. But even so they did the monumental... would people want to fly on it? That's the question. Kind of like flying without your pilots. Would you?
DeleteThanks for the great comment~
The Airlines are sure to want these especially for the amount of seats. Passengers usually dont get a choice - window seat or not. Hopefully we see something like this from Airbus because it seems alot more efficient than the current design.
ReplyDelete---Also, in an emergency how are they going to get 1000 people out???---
I don't think they would get them out. But never say never. Planes like this are a non-revers dream. Thanks for your comment!
DeleteThis plane is AWESOME!!! I think Boeing should make this plane float in water so no matter how many times it will make an emergency landing on the water, it won't sink.
ReplyDeleteYes... then it can be a cruise ship too! :)
DeleteYou need to be able to evacuate the entire aircraft within 90 seconds. With few windows (and doors) and 1000 passengers, it would be extremely tough to evacuate those in the middle-back of the plane.
ReplyDeleteYes you do. They would have their work cut out for them for sure.
DeletePassenger aircraft have changed very little in the past 50-70 years ... same basic fuselage, wings and engines (albeit advancements in avionics, radar and weather forecasting). Richard Branson of Virgin Airlines has shown different designs for high altitude flights, not high volume passenger loads such as the A380. If we think ahead for the next 100 years, we'll probably have developed point-to-point matter transport centers (or stepping discs) and then high passenger load aircraft become superfluous.
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting comment. I'm thinking the 707 in 1962, is vastly different than the 787 of today. The only similarities is they have two wings, a fuselage, a tail, and fly.
DeleteLooks like an awesome design! The only drawback is the extremely-limited number of window seats for this design. Myself like most other flyers love having a window seat and being able to stare outside while the plane is in flight to see what's below. It's not ideal as a passenger jetliner design, but this would be superb for a future design for a cargo jetliner as there would be LOTS of room for a large number of cargo pallets (at least twice as much as an A380F) and cargo pallets don't need window seats either!
ReplyDeleteIt does! But I'm thinking that I want the aisle. Only because if we have to evacuate... I'm out of there. lol. You're right...excellent freighter for sure. Thanks for your comment!
DeleteHere's one for you ... food for thought: The 797 not as a BWB but as a replacement for the 737 series. I've played around on the sim with a design, looks all the world like the 787 but is the size of the 734/738. Weighs less than the 757 but in the 3,800 - 4,200 nm range. It keeps the standard 6-abreast single isle but the round design like the 787 means slightly wider seats in coach and of course the bigger windows. Would there be any takers for that? (Bag the 737MAX and go with the 787 shape/design/raked wing-thing.)
ReplyDeleteI am liking the way you think! Wider seats. More room. Bigger windows and looks like the 787. This is my plane!! And passengers would love it. Thanks for the great idea!
DeleteVery Very Good, thank you and thank you so much.
ReplyDeletewe are from Iran, all Iranian like the Boing Co.
Thank you! I am from Seattle and I love Boeing too. :) Have a wonderful day!
DeleteGreat design, I'm looking forward to pilot such an aircraft, but not until they add a rudder, I don't like it when the aircraft enters an unrecoverable spin or lands sideways
ReplyDeleteGreetings Captain Amnar
No kidding! And if it does enter an urecoverable spin, I will have to write about it. Did you see my new book is out? :) http://tinyurl.com/mjjkdon
DeleteI am interested in Making A 3D model of this, in 3DS MAX software. can I have more details about this flight
DeleteI would love to tell you more, but this is all I know. Google...it's your best friend!
DeleteAny more close view photos ? or what is written on the body ?
DeleteThis is it. Go to the internet. lol
Deletehttp://www.turbosquid.com/Search/Artists/Real-One?referral=Real-One
DeleteUse this link to see 3D models of 787 dreamliners
my screen name is Real One.
I’m frequent transatlantic flyer so I know what it means to seat for about 8 hours in economy class seat not to mention those on transpacific flights. Give people comfortable and spacious seats for the same price and nobody will complain that plane is ugly or they have no window view or anything else. Just have guts and do it.
ReplyDeleteI'm not thinking this would be about giving economy passengers comfort. I'm thinking it would be to pack more people in.
DeleteBoeing's rejection of the 797 due to a lack of passenger windows must be false. Finnair provides fantastic inflight seat video viewing for passengers to see more than one could through a single window. Great larger seating and food t reasonable prices will keep all passengers happy. FAA certification, emergency and flight capabilities are the true issues- at present. Profits are the driving force, not service.
ReplyDeleteWhile the pilots may be driving...we are anything but a force. That force is $$$ If they can make it, they will build it. lol
DeleteAs long as we're making improvement suggestions that won't really matter in the long run.... if window seats are that important, with today's techno, couldn't they just project the outside view into the cabin... turning every seat into a window seat..... until the plane loses altitude and plummets back to earth... in which case the cameras should be turned off .... no one likes to see themselves turned into meat scraps....
ReplyDeleteI sure don't like seeing myself turned into meat scraps! Thanks for the comment.
DeleteI am sure this is entirely possible, we have all the technology to make this plane a reality.
ReplyDeleteIn America, everything follows "bigger is better". In this case, we can easily see to what it can lead... I hope the plane makes Mach 8 with a mixture of honey and milk... Panoramic windows and, of course, a starbucks coffee shop.
ReplyDeleteI dont think that the economical advantage of hauling 1000 pax in one plane can compesate the risk and the cost, especially the research cost will be as high as there has never been a commercial aircraft like this. Theres a little difference between an USAF pilot landing the B-2 and a bunch of tourists who dont like physical forces, for example in case of a crosswind landing. Wait... crosswind landing without rudder? have fun...
I hope there are ideas in america who dont match "bigger is better"
A 797 for example.
Greetings from Switzerland ;)
Greetings to Switzerland from Seattle! I agree completely with you. And bigger is not better (except for my starbucks cup after a short night sleep)
DeleteThose small brilliant ideas are in the making.
Thank you so much for your comment!!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI dont know why you deleted my comment...
ReplyDeleteThat was the photo at their website used in news
I know... It was an accident! I was going to try to get it back, but just got busy working. It's not permanent... so no worries! Thanks for the reminder!
DeleteIt seems to me all these concerns are a good engineer's bread and butter. They may engineer it poorly and leave many passengers uncomfortable or they may figure out a way to make all these concerns no longer an issue.
ReplyDeleteHow do you engineer an aircraft to allow 1000 surprised and untrained passengers to evacuate in <90 seconds? I'm not sure myself but I'm sure there is a good way to do it and hopefully some good engineers who will find it.
How do you land this thing in a hard crosswind with no rudder? I think the cute word they are looking for is 'duckerons' (like a duck bill). They go on the trailing edge of each wing near the tip and open to create drag on one side or the other, turning the plane on the yaw axis just like a rudder. The X-36 uses duckerons if you want to see some.
How will they pressurize a non-cigar shaped cabin? There is nothing so special about flying cigars that makes it impossible or even significantly difficult to engineer a different shape to be pressurized.
Is there no way to make sensitive passengers comfortable without windows? I suffer from motion sickness myself and I much prefer looking out of a window. Perhaps a camera (or several) providing live video feed to any passenger who wants it will be sufficient. As for the passengers seated far from the aircraft centerline a sensor system can give the pilot an indication of how ...exciting the ride is for those passengers allowing them to fly in a way that minimizes discomfort.
I don't mind the shape of the 797, I've always been a fan of the flying wing design. This blended wing design looks very organic.
Great comments on this airplane! I think if they figure out how to make a profit, (manufacturers and airlines) they will address all your thoughts to make it work! Thanks for the comment.
DeleteI'm not so sure about the distance from windows. I know that my computer's Windows keeps changing. I hate every change they make because I've gotten used to the way it was. People are flexible and will get used to what they're offered.
ReplyDeleteThe big thing is to make sure they have a system for a 90 second evacuation. And they'll almost certainly have to give into the need for rudder control in the end. But if these challenges can be met, I know that pushing more people with less but more fuel efficient engines (ie. Trent or GE) saves a ton of money.
No need for every airport to handle these. 1000 people are not all going to be headed for every little airport at once.
I'm reluctant to say that it can't be done because of past issues with flying wings. There are always methods to get a job done. There is very little limit to human ingenuity. Considering the amount of money spent on Airbus, it may not be all that expensive to develop as they have already got much of the technology sorted out and know where the challenges are.
As to airport transfer ramps not fitting, I suspect that (considering the limited number of airports they will need to service) Boeing would be happy to supply them with retrofit kits to accommodate their 797.
The real problem is that everything made by man is vulnerable to mistakes and failures. Even autopilots and computer programs are made by men. When one of these comes down (and they all do eventually), the death toll will be a new one for the books.
Yes, so true! And every computer designed to make something is designed by man as well. There will always be room for human error. Thank you for your comment!
DeleteIt’s a good idea to take a initiative to make a 1000 passengers aircraft though but This design seems not practical, first its fifty percent hull is sloped that need to be reduced while keep the surface volume same and secondly, an alternative to vertical fin rudder is a yawing capable engine that need to be in place. if those are already accomplished then well done.
ReplyDeleteSaif, I agree... just not practical. And that's way too many people on one plane. Thank you for the comment!
DeleteThanks Karlene, i support your idea.
ReplyDeleteThank you! You should read this. http://tinyurl.com/hzczhba
DeleteShould i recommend others? thank you@
ReplyDeleteYes. Thank you so much!!!
DeleteHuman ingenuity knows no bounds. 150 years ago idea of flying would have been impossible to comprehend. Give it time and someone will create it.
ReplyDeleteIsn't that the truth!! Perhaps that's what makes us human. But the growth and ingenuity is growing so fast, that it's mind boggling. Thanks for your comment!
DeleteI like flying in the 747 and A380 but I try to avoid them as they can take an hour or longer to board depending on the airport. The next problem is the line at customs and baggage. With 1000 seats I can see problems at current airports.If it's not work I like to fly mid week on a midsized aircraft.
ReplyDeleteOh... never thought about the boarding. That would be crazy to board that many people. Thanks for your comment!
DeleteWell, I like the design. It looks impressive. I would try it if commercial flights were available.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if this plane could be reality or not, but I love its elegant design and appearance. I would have taken a trip to it if it was a commercial flight.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more!
Delete